Should Punitive Damages Go to the State

[Learned Hand]

Your vote is anonymous. If you want to express your opinion openly, do so below.

I am curious. Do you believe that punitive damages, which are awarded in most states to punish and deter another from doing the same or similar conduct in the future, should go to the individual victim of the wrong, or should it be taken/given to the state for its own use?

Punitive damages, when awarded, are in addition to actual losses you have suffered as the result of a civil wrong. They are generally awarded when someone's conduct goes beyond mere negligence or accident, and are done recklessly, knowingly, or purposefully. Examples of cases where punitive damages are awarded include cases of civil battery, libel/slander, car wrecks where the person at fault is drunk or high, and even where insurance companies refuse to settle claims in bad faith (where they try to force you to settle for less than the real value of your claim).

 

[cosmictraveler]

Sometimes the state is the victim. Otherwise it should go to the victim.

 

[madanthonywayne]

The State. Their purpose is to punish the offender, not to reward the victim. I'm sick of this jackpot justice system. Spill coffee on yourself, file a lawsuit. A criminal hurts himself while breaking into your house, he files a lawsuit.

We need serious tort reform. Removing the incentive of a punitive damages jackpot settlement would be one good step. Another would be loser pays. Another would be requiring people to "opt in" to class action lawsuits before some lawyer files one in their name.

Nothing pisses me off more than getting a check in the mail for 67 cents that's part of some class action settlement. I know the jackass lawyer who filed the suit in my name walked off with ten million dollars. Meanwhile, I get, in addition to the 67 cents, higher prices.

Such a deal!

 

[cosmictraveler]

The State. Their purpose is to punish the offender, not to reward the victim

So if the victim is now a paraplegic and can never return to work who's going to cover all of his debts, his children's upbringing, his wifes needs, his food, shelter and on and on?

 

[Learned Hand]

The State. Their purpose is to punish the offender, not to reward the victim. I'm sick of this jackpot justice system. Spill coffee on yourself, file a lawsuit. A criminal hurts himself while breaking into your house, he files a lawsuit.

We need serious tort reform. Removing the incentive of a punitive damages jackpot settlement would be one good step. Another would be loser pays. Another would be requiring people to "opt in" to class action lawsuits before some lawyer files one in their name.

Nothing pisses me off more than getting a check in the mail for 67 cents that's part of some class action settlement. I know the jackass lawyer who filed the suit in my name walked off with ten million dollars. Meanwhile, I get, in addition to the 67 cents, higher prices.

Such a deal!

So if someone or some company intentionally, as opposed to negligently, disparaged your good name in your particular profession (say in a newspaper or commercial), purposely causing you to lose credibility, business, and livelihood, you would be perfectly fine to accept merely compensatory (actual) damages, and any punitive damages for harm directed specifically at you (and not the public) as a vendetta against you should be given to the state????

 

[Nasor]

I don't think most of the people here understand what "punitive damages" are. Punitive damages are fines beyond the amount of compensation that the plaintiff is actually entitled to.

 

[Learned Hand]

I don't think most of the people here understand what "punitive damages" are. Punitive damages are fines beyond the amount of compensation that the plaintiff is actually entitled to.

Thanks for pointing this out. I edited my first post to help clarify.

 

[Baron Max]

The State. Their purpose is to punish the offender, not to reward the victim.

I agree wholeheartedly.

I also think that such a change would help prevent the numerous frivilous lawsuits that are brought into the already overcrowded courts.

Baron Max

 

[Learned Hand]

I agree wholeheartedly.

I also think that such a change would help prevent the numerous frivilous lawsuits that are brought into the already overcrowded courts.

Baron Max

And what, exactly, do you define as a frivolous lawsuit??

 

[Tiassa]

Punitive damages should go to the claimant. If the state wants its piece, the state can undertake its own action.

Punitive damages, when awarded, are in addition to actual losses you have suffered as the result of a civil wrong.

If I make you incredibly and chronically sick through negligence, I might be facing millions in the settlement just to keep up on the medical bills for the rest of your life. What, though, is the value of the reduction of one's quality of life? This is a hard number to formulate. And I don't mean the, "You took away my potential multimillion-dollar baseball career." I mean, "Thanks for paying for the machine that keeps me breathing, but I need a machine to keep me breathing, and my family needs to tend to me twenty-four hours a day." Punitive settlements account for things that we would call "intangible".

In the case of tabloid libel, there are two questions at least that I think are relevant: Just how damaging is it that you spend the rest of your life fighting the unfounded rumors that you're a pedophile? And just how much does the tabloid depend on walking this dangerous line for its profits? Perhaps a punitive award of millions seems excessive, but some of these rags make their living pretending that Whitney Huston's drug-laden lesbo orgy is a vital community interest. It doesn't seem at all unfair to penalize them for stumbling over a line that they ought to have seen clear as day.

Perhaps punitive damages are generally out of control when applying a multibillion-dollar faux-pas to a dispute between people who don't have millions and billions to pay, but that is a separate issue. But there is much about humanity that demands consideration despite the fact that it cannot be easily recorded in a ledger.

So, yeah: give the damages to the victim, and let the state pursue its own ends.

 

[Learned Hand]

So if the victim is now a paraplegic and can never return to work who's going to cover all of his debts, his children's upbringing, his wifes needs, his food, shelter and on and on?

That would be covered by actual damages (the actual amount of financial loss to you from loss of work, enjoyment of life, pain & suffering, mental anguish, medical bills, etc.). Punitive damages are awarded to punish and deter eggregious conduct which caused the actual damages.

Sorry for the mix up. My original post didn't properly clarify the difference between these types of damages. I've since edited it so no one gets further confused. . .

 

[Learned Hand]

Nothing pisses me off more than getting a check in the mail for 67 cents that's part of some class action settlement. I know the jackass lawyer who filed the suit in my name walked off with ten million dollars. Meanwhile, I get, in addition to the 67 cents, higher prices.

Such a deal!

Don't get pissed at the lawyer. Get pissed at the (generally) Republican appointed federal judge who allowed the fees and certified the class. The judge has FULL control over the reasonableness of these matters in class actions. But that's for another thread. . .

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

Do you believe that punitive damages, which are awarded in most states to punish and deter another from doing the same or similar conduct in the future, should go to the individual victim of the wrong, or should it be taken/given to the state for its own use?

In America, at least, government has gotten so big as to be not simply inefficient but dangerous. It eats up a major portion of our GDP and most of that money does nothing more than establish it as The Employer Of Last Resort, employing something like fourteen million people who do nothing except sit around all day and "administer" each other. On the military side, the money was used to punish a nation for 9/11 that had nothing to do with 9/11. On the civilian side, it pays the salaries of police "officers" who use civilians for target practice on foot and for pylons when driving. On the legal side it supports the persecution of responsible citizens who indulge in drugs that are less harmful than the legal ones, mandates spending fifteen minutes strapping our babies into miniature space capsules for a trip to the supermarket, and funds studies proving that we're all morons because we like foods cooked in trans-fatty acids.

The absolute last thing America needs to do is find yet another way to give the government more money. What we need to do is institute a freeze so that no new civil "servants" can be hired until 90% of them have retired or died.

And what, exactly, do you define as a frivolous lawsuit??

In Washington DC, a man (a municipal judge, to everyone's amazement) filed a sixty million dollar lawsuit against a dry-cleaning establishment for misplacing his trousers. Is that frivolous enough fer ya?

 

[madanthonywayne]

So if the victim is now a paraplegic and can never return to work who's going to cover all of his debts, his children's upbringing, his wifes needs, his food, shelter and on and on?

The victim will still get actual damages, pain and suffering, etc. We're talking about punitive damages. I'm not saying the victim gets nothing. He should be "made whole", that is, reimbursed for any actual damage done to him. But why should he collect money that is basically a fine?

 

[madanthonywayne]

In Washington DC, a man (a municipal judge, to everyone's amazement) filed a sixty million dollar lawsuit against a dry-cleaning establishment for misplacing his trousers. Is that frivolous enough fer ya?

It gets worse. The lawsuit continued despite the fact that the drycleaner ultimately found the pants!

 

[oreodont]

It gets worse. The lawsuit continued despite the fact that the drycleaner ultimately found the pants!

That particular lawsuit is bizarre but doesn't negate legitimate grievances that some working class gal might have against a large corporation that tries to step all over her. sure, she might be out 100 bucks in real damage but why pursue such a lawsuit for $100? Working shmucks will roll over and go away. One reason for punitive damages going to the plaintiff (if awarded) is to encourage 'average' citizens to pursue their legitimate rights to opportunity, property, dignity, etc.

Grandma shouldn't be pushed around and have to sue Sears or some roofing contractor for her $100. Grandma deserves another $1000 for standing up and facing down the big guy who should have had the sense to compensate her $100 before going to court.

Punitive damages aren't just tens of thousands awarded in bizarre cases but also to help the guy in the mail room get properly compensated for being pushed around by GM or Ford who refused to honor the warranty on his new car.

 

[Bells]

It should go to the 'victim' or the claimant.

However there is a dire need for tort reform to reduce the sheer volume of frivolous lawsuits (for example the Judge with the lost pants). People now seem to view the courts as a money making machine, when it is not. Frivolous lawsuits are costly, not just in monetary terms, but also in terms of tying up the system, sometimes for years.

 

[Bells]

The victim will still get actual damages, pain and suffering, etc. We're talking about punitive damages. I'm not saying the victim gets nothing. He should be "made whole", that is, reimbursed for any actual damage done to him. But why should he collect money that is basically a fine?

While the claimant is awarded damages, the "fine" should be paid to them in that the wrongdoer is then seen to have been punished. See it as a form of tribal punishment, where the claimant is able to punish and make the wrongdoer pay a fine directly to them. This is done in the hope that the wrongdoer will have learned from their mistake and has to physically pay the claimant the fine. Actual damages are sometimes not paid by the wrongdoer in certain cases, for example in instances of medical negligence, where the medical practitioner is insured and does not have to physically pay any amount of money to the claimant. Punitive damages comes directly out of the accused's pocket. It is to make sure the wrongdoer actually does pay for his/her negligence. It should only be paid to the State if the State is the 'victim'.

 

[cosmictraveler]

That would be covered by actual damages (the actual amount of financial loss to you from loss of work, enjoyment of life, pain & suffering, mental anguish, medical bills, etc.). Punitive damages are awarded to punish and deter eggregious conduct which caused the actual damages.

Sorry for the mix up. My original post didn't properly clarify the difference between these types of damages. I've since edited it so no one gets further confused. . .

So the owner of the device that caused the accident that paralyzed that man will pay for ALL damages PLUS more to the state instead of to the victim? That doesn't make sense for if the owner of the device knowingly caused the device to not work properly and let this happen then only the victim is getting hurt and he should reap the damages not the state.

 

[Baron Max]

See it as a form of tribal punishment, ....

If I do that, then I think the tribe should get something, too!

It should only be paid to the State if the State is the 'victim'.

Interesting that you should mention that, yet not recognize that the state (the society) is, in fact, one of the victims! A person or company doing something injurious to one person is a danger to the entire society and should be punished for subjecting that society to dangers.

So the state (society) should get the punitive damages, since the one victim has already been paid for all of his/her injuries, including pain and suffering.

Baron Max